Care proceedings. The father resides in Turkey. An interim care order was made and leave given for the child to travel to Turkey to be assessed living with his with his father pending the final hearing.

Two appeals raising the question whether the ban contained in paragraph 277 of the Immigration Rules on the entry for settlement of foreign spouses between the ages of 18 and 21 is a lawful way of dealing with the problem of forced marriages. Appeals allowed.

Judgment in child abduction proceedings which raised two important issues: (i) whether adoption of habitual residence should be voluntary; and (ii) the effect of the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Neulinger & Shuruk v Switzerland.

Care proceedings. Child had suffered an Acute Life-Threatening Event. Court found that the event had been caused non-accidentally and identified the father as the perpetrator of it. The father appealed on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to justify the finding that the event was caused non-accidentally. Court also found that the mother and the father should both be consigned to a pool of possible perpetrators of other non-accidental injuries. Mother cross-appealed against this finding. Father's appeal dismissed but mother's cross-appeal allowed.

Husband’s appeal against the assumption of jurisdiction by court in England where the wife had previously petitioned for judicial separation in Italy. Question raised as to whether the order of the Italian court which declared the wife’s petition void had the effect of bringing those proceedings to an end. Appeal dismissed.

Care proceedings. Recorder found father guilty of domestic violence. Guardian's counsel subsequently discovered that the guardian had instructed the recorder in a different case which was still ongoing. An application was made for the recorder to recuse herself. The recorder did so, but refused to set aside her earlier findings. The father's appeal was allowed.

Care Proceedings: Fact finding hearing to establish whether six week old twin girls had suffered non-accidental injuries. Local authority failed to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that any of the injuries were non-accidental. Application dismissed. The court considered the discharge of the burden of proof, unreliable expert evidence, the need for good quality photographs and for skilled representation in care proceedings.

A US commercial surrogacy agreement case where Hedley J gives reasons for making a Parental Order pursuant to Section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in favour of the applicants in respect of a child known as L.

Father issued Hague proceedings, but order for summary return overturned on appeal. The father then issued human rights proceedings on behalf of himself and the children, alleging breaches of Article 8. Held, there had been no violation of Article 8.

Children sent on respite placements but formal fostering with the parent continued. Local authority decided not to return the children to the foster parent's care. At issue was whether the local authority acted in breach of s 22(4) of Children Act 1989 in failing to find out views of the foster parent.